PENINSULA MINERALS LIMITED PRESENTATION PEN Presentation.pdf · Presentation is, or may be relied upon as, a promise, representation or warranty, whether as to the past or the future

31 Ord Street, West Perth WA 6005,

GPO Box 2809, West Perth WA 6872 Phone: +61 (0) 8 9420 9333 Fax: +61 (0) 8 9321 2477

Peninsula Minerals Limited - ABN: 67 062 409 303

18 September 2008 Companies Announcement Off ice Via Electronic Lodgement

PENINSULA MINERALS LIMITED PRESENTATION

Please find attached an updated version of the Peninsula Minerals Limited presentation on the Lance Projects in Wyoming, U.S.A and the Karoo Projects in South Africa.

The presentation can also be found on the Company’s website:

www.peninsulaminerals.com.au

Yours Sincerely

Jonathan Whyte Company Secretary For further information, please contact our office on (08)9420 9333 during normal business hours.

Peninsula MineralsDeveloping Uranium Projects on

Three ContinentsThree Continents

Lance Project – Wyoming USAWyoming

U j y gU

Western AustraliaU

South AfricaU/Mo

USouth Australia

U

DisclaimerThis presentation is provided on the basis that the Company nor its representatives make any warranty (express or implied) as tothe accuracy, reliability, relevance or completeness of the material contained in the Presentation and nothing contained in thePresentation is, or may be relied upon as, a promise, representation or warranty, whether as to the past or the future. TheCompany hereby excludes all warranties that can be excluded by law. The Presentation contains material which is predictive innature and may be affected by inaccurate assumptions or by known and unknown risks and uncertainties, and may differ materiallyfrom results ultimately achieved.The Presentation contains “forward‐looking statements”. All statements other than those of historical facts included in thePresentation are forward‐looking statements including estimates of resources. However, forward‐looking statements are subject torisks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projectedor implied by such forward‐looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to, gold and other metals price volatility,currency fluctuations increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining planscurrency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans,as well as political and operational risks and governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. The Company does not undertake anyobligation to release publicly any revisions to any “forward‐looking statement” to reflect events or circumstances after the date ofthe Presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.All persons should consider seeking appropriate professional advice in reviewing the Presentation and all other information withrespect to the Company and evaluating the business, financial performance and operations of the Company. Neither the provisionespect to t e Co pa y a d e a uat g t e bus ess, a c a pe o a ce a d ope at o s o t e Co pa y. e t e t e p o s oof the Presentation nor any information contained in the Presentation or subsequently communicated to any person in connectionwith the Presentation is, or should be taken as, constituting the giving of investment advice to any person.The information in this presentation that relates to Exploration Results and Exploration Potential is based on information compiledby Mr Jim Guilinger. Mr Guilinger is President of consultancy World Industrial Minerals and is a Competent Person under thedefinition of the 2004 JORC Code. The Exploration Potential described above is conceptual in nature, and there is insufficientinformation to establish whether further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource. Mr Guilinger consentsto the publication of this information in the form and context in which it appears.The Presentation does not relate to any securities which will be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933 nor anysecurities which may be offered or sold in the United States or to a U.S. person unless registered under the United States SecuritiesAct of 1933 or in a transaction exempt from registration.

C it l St tCapital Structure ASX Code PEN

Existing shares 961 million

Options 218 million

Market Cap A$25 million

C h A$4 6 illiCash A$4.6 million

Daily turnover 3 14 millionDaily turnover 3‐14 million

ManagementManagementCharacterised by Leadership and Uranium Expertisey p p

Directors and ManagementExecutive Chairman Gus Simpson Strong leadership, corporate and project management skills

T h i l Di t D Al M lTechnical Director Dr. Alan Marlow PhD in economic geology and uranium specialist (ex Gencor)

Chief Operating Officer Andrew FordHighly experienced exploration geologist and project manager (ex Barrick Gold)

Non Executive Director Malcolm James Strong corporate and project financing experience (ex Anaconda)

Non Executive Director Warwick Grigor Experienced Mining Analyst and corporate director (ex County Nat West)

Company Secretary Jonathan WhyteChartered Accountant and experienced company secretary (ex Barclays Capital plc)

Project Manager Wyoming Jim GuilingerHighly experienced Uranium geologist (ex Texaco)

Engineering Professional Doug ChristophersonExperienced Mining engineer with expertise in mine feasibility studies and mine design

Chief Geologist Wyoming Bob GuilingerHighly experienced Uranium geologist (ex Union Carbide)

Mine Permitting Professional Lee Patrick GochnourVery experienced at permitting new operations and environmental management

Project Manager Karoo Peter Danchin Experienced uranium explorer and project manager (ex Union Carbide)p p p j g ( )

Operations Manager South Africa Douglas Goodall Highly experienced African Explorer

Comparative ValuationComparative ValuationResearchResearchResearch report1 rated Peninsula as having high quality projectshigh quality projects and as being under valuedAt US$50/lb

At US $90/lb

Reasons: USA miningUSA mining environment misunderstoodNeed for land acquisition secrecy resulted in a lack of project information

1Source: Far East Capital Uranium Sector Analysis 21 April 2008.

Global Energy RequirementsGlobal Energy RequirementsThe world is well on the way toconsuming as much energy in thenext 25 years as it has consumedthroughout modern history

Current reliance on coal to provide majority of base load power generation to continue

Increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst reducing reliance on imported energy sourcessources

US President recently referred to nuclear power as " . . . the best solution to make sure we have economic growth and atsure we have economic growth and at the same time make sure we are being good stewards of the environment."

World Uranium Demand to Grow RapidlyWorld Uranium Demand to Grow Rapidly

N l P i thNuclear Power is the complimentary base load power source to coal

Uranium demand will increase from 170 million lb

bper annum to between 536 and 661 million lb per annum by 2050 (equivalent to 15 Olympic Dam sized mines)*mines)

Current reactor status439 operational33 under construction94 planned

d222 proposed

* Source: International Energy Agency “Desired energy Mix Scenarios for 2050” June 6 2008

Projects Summaryj yProject Area Historic Exploration

Lance projects ‐Wyoming USA

12,905 acres (52 km2) Data from 5,036 rotary and percussion holes for 912,000m.Wyoming USA 912,000m.

13 historic resources over 23 miles (37km) of strike consisting of vertically stacked roll front uranium i li ti PEN t l titl 7 f thmineralisation; PEN controls title over 7 of these.

40,000 lb U3O8 per year Pilot Plant built in 1978 and ran for 10 months.

Decision to proceed with full scale production plant abandoned due to Three Mile Island Incident.

Karoo Projects: Tenure covers 1,980km2 Over 1,300 rotary and percussion holes drilled historically jEastern, Western and Northern Cape Province, South Africa

(764 sq miles) from 6 Projects known as Sites 5, 22, 29,37,45,49

at four of the Sites.New high level radiometric anomalies identified at all six sites. Follow up on‐ground work confirms Uranium presence.

Historic resources identified at 3 Sites.

U and Mo mineralisation identified at all Sites.

South Australian and Western Australian Projects

12 Projects covering 864km2 (334 sq miles)

Early exploration in quality uranium provinces.

Lance Project DescriptionLance Project DescriptionThe Lance projects areThe Lance projects are situated in NE Wyoming, 31 miles (50 km) NE of Gillette in the Powder Ri B iRiver BasinThe PRB has 2 operating ISR minesTh PRB h 5 ISRThe PRB has 5 ISR projects in restoration or permittingWyoming has anotherWyoming has another 10 Uranium projects in various stages of developmentWyoming has numerous active exploration projects

Wyoming Mining Environmenty g gUS annual consumption of 50 million lb U3O8 per/year

92% of US uranium demand is met by imports

Federal Government desires increased self reliance

In 1980 the USA was the worlds leading uranium producer

Wyoming is currently the USA’s leading uranium producerWyoming is currently the USA s leading uranium producer

Uranium production has been continuous since 1951

All current production is from In‐Situ Recovery (ISR)p y ( )

Wyoming production is predicted to grow from 3 million lb in 2007 to 17 million lb in 2015

W i DEQ i f i l ll f d d d ll i dWyoming DEQ is professional, well funded and well practiced

Wyoming has significant revenue from coal, oil, and uranium productionp

30m thick coal seam Rio Tinto-seam, Rio TintoPeabody Antelope Mine, Gillette Wyoming

Lance Project Historyj yUranium mineralisation first identified by Mr Al Stoick in late 1960’sIn 1970 Mr Stoick initiated a JV between Bethlehem Steel, Nuclear Dynamics and later Pacific Power and Hydro (NuBeth JV)and later Pacific Power and Hydro (NuBeth JV).Between 1970‐1979 5,036 holes for more than 3.5 million ft (912,000m) were drilled h d ll d f d f l d ffThis drilling defined significant uranium mineralisation in 13 different locations over a strike length of 23 miles (37km)In 1978 a ISR pilot plant was constructed and operated for a period of sixmonthsThe Pilot Plant was designed to produce 40,000lb U3O8 /year utilising a benign leachate of sodium bicarbonate

Looking NE towards Devils Tower, Lance Project

Lance Projects HistoryAfter 6 months of successful operation a proposal to commence full scaleproduction was prepared for presentation to the JV members however on the28 March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred28 March 1979 the Three Mile Island incident occurred

The pilot plant was shut down shortly after this and thoroughly rehabilitated

All environmental bonds were reimbursed by 1984

The project lay dormant until 2005 when Mr Stoick brought the project data toparties associated with Peninsula Minerals

Peninsula identified the potential of the project and recognised that the task ofPeninsula identified the potential of the project and recognised that the task of acquiring additional title was achievable

Mr Stoick is employed by Peninsula continuing a 40+ year involvement with the project

Rehabilitated NuBeth storage ponds

Site Infrastructure

The region is serviced by well maintained sealed roads and theproject is traversed by well maintained unsealed roadsproject is traversed by well maintained unsealed roads

Activities in the project area include minimal stock raising, low leveloil and gas productionoil and gas production

Topography is gently undulating hills covered by grasses andsagebrushsagebrush

Oil production wells, Lance Project

Lance GeologyMineral Title

Lance Projects Area with PEN

currently held is outlined in blue a ce ojec s ea

holdings covers 23 miles (37km) N‐S, 5 miles (8km) E‐W

Main hosts to U mineralisation

in blue, and being acquired

Main hosts to U mineralisation are the Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone N

outlined in black

22 Roll fronts which are linear but sinuous in nature over combined strike length of 127

37 km

Geological Legend gmiles (207 km)Fort Union Fm

Alluvium

Lance FmFox Hills FmPierre ShaleGreenhorn FmBelle Fourche Shale

Geological Legend

Minor U Mineralisation

Major U hostMajor U host

Skull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm

Belle Fourche ShaleMowry Fm

6km (3.8 miles)

Historic Explorationtitle

being acquired

Total of 5,036 holes for 912,000m drilled by NuBeth JV in 1970’s

acquired outlined in black

9 0 s

N

Geological Legend

Fort Union FmAlluvium


Geological Legend





6km (3.8 miles)

Emerson Historic l iLucas

Houx Cl k

Explorationtitle being acquired Widespread Uranium

mineralisation hosted in multiple roll fronts

Houx Clark

RossKendrick


identified over 13 project areasCareyBrookes

Ch tt tN

Geological Legend

Chatterton

RichardsOsborne



Geological Legend



BarberSkull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm


Warren6km (3.8 miles)

Emerson Historic l iLucas

Houx Cl k

Explorationtitle being acquired Over 22 mineralised sand units

identifiedUp to 8 mineralised sands are

Houx Clark

RossKendrick


ppresent in any one project areaMineralisation depth between 360 ‐500ft (120‐160m)

CareyBrookes

Ch tt tN

( )Water table at between 35‐100ft (10‐35m) ideal for in‐situ recoveryGeological Legend

Chatterton

RichardsOsborne

recoveryFort Union FmAlluvium


Geological Legend



BarberSkull Creek ShaleNewcastle Fm


Warren6km (3.8 miles)

Historic Av 5ft @ 0.04%eU3O8

MineralisationAv 8ft @ 0.10%eU3O8

Av 4ft @ 0 12%eU OAv 15ft @All projects contain grades above realistic cut‐off thresholds of 0.02% U3O8 for an ISR operation

Av 4ft @ 0.12%eU3O8Av 15ft @ 0.04%eU3O8

Av 13ft @ 0.05%eU3O8Av 3.5ft @ 0 11%eU O 3 8

Average thickness 5‐15 ft ideal for ISR

N

0.11%eU3O8 Av 6ft @ 0.11%eU3O8Av 7ft @ 0.06% Av 5ft @ 0 04%eU O

Geological Legend

ISR0.06% eU3O8

Av 5ft @ 0.04%eU3O8

Av 7ft @ 0.09%eU3O8

Av 8ft @Fort Union FmAlluvium


Geological Legend



Av 8ft @ 0.07%eU3O8

Av 5ft @



Av 5ft @ 0.11%eU3O8

Av 10ft @ 0.07%eU3O8

6km (3.8 miles)

Historic best 13ft @ 0.24%eU3O8

best 15ft @ 0 22%eU Obest 53ft @Mineralisation

Grades over 0.10% eU3O8are widespreadP i l f hi h d

best 15ft @ 0.22%eU3O8best 53ft @ 0.03%eU3O8

best 13ft @ 0.28%eU3O8

Potential for higher gradezones existsAverage thickness 5‐15 ft;N

best 11ft @ 0.09%eU3O8best 7ft @ 0.07%

Geological Legend

ideal for ISR0.07% eU3O8


best 4ft @Fort Union FmAlluvium


Geological Legend




best 8ft @





6km (3.8 miles)

Exploration xplorationPotentialtitle

being acquired

Global Exploration Target Size within and between all project


p jareas is 39‐60 million short tons @ 0.05‐0.07% eU3O8 for 50‐76 million lbs U3O8

1N

Geological Legend

Historic testing supports In‐Situ Recovery process



Geological Legend





6km (3.8 miles)

In‐Situ Recovery (Leaching)In Situ Recovery (Leaching)ISR is the extraction of Uranium from sandstone aquifers by thecycling of oxygen enriched water through the aquifer which hostsU3O8 deposits on the redox frontsThese deposits occur from the precipitation of U3O8 out of solutionp p p 3 8when uranium enriched ground water moving through thesandstone encounters a oxygen reduced (redox front) section of theaquiferAssuming the sandstone aquifer meets the pre‐conditions for thisstyle of mineral extraction this is a relatively simple, low costoperationThe mining operation can be low cost as there is no blasting, earthmoving and milling component to the processTypically 36% of the worlds Uranium production is from ISR(L)Typically 36% of the worlds Uranium production is from ISR(L)operations

ISR Geologygy

U3O8 mineralisation occurs at the interface between oxidized and reduced zones

Source: Wyoming Mining Association

Classic roll front geology in a sandstone aquiferIn situ recovery is relatively simple if key characteristics are present in the depositthe depositContainment PermeabilityWater TableLeachabilityDepth

Ross Project Historic hydrological and metallurgical testing demonstrate:

Containment – show impermeable shale beds are present above and below theContainment show impermeable shale beds are present above and below the main uraniferous sandstonesPermeability ‐ good horizontal (2‐4 darcy’s) and vertical permeability (1‐3 darcy’s)

and porosity (35%); low clay content (5%)Water Table – water table between 10‐30m, main ore 120‐160m (head of water

determines the volume of oxygen in solution)Leachability ‐ uranium that can be leached from cores in laboratory tests (89‐95%

recovery)Depth – all main aquifers are below the water at economically pumpable depths

In‐Field Tests Showed:

Successful push‐pull test indicates good recharge and movement of groundwaterSuccessful in‐situ leaching of uranium from the sandstone formation Successful restoration of the groundwater in the area mined.

Development ModelDevelopment Model

To delineate 15m lb U3O8 of Indicated Resource at twoproject locationsproject locations

To build a 1 5m lb per year U O production facility and anTo build a 1.5m lb per year U3O8 production facility and anIn‐ Situ Recovery operation at a centralised locationwithin the Lance Projects with production within 1 year ofwithin the Lance Projects with production within 1 year ofpermitting

Continue to add additional resources through explorationwithin our own project areaswithin our own project areas

Development ModelDevelopment ModelInitial Production Centre's

Exploration target size at Ross for feasibility decision is 6.4‐9.5 illi h @ 0 05 0 07%

Production Centre 1RossExploration target size million short tons @ 0.05‐0.07%

eU3O8 for 8‐12 million lb U3O81

N

Exploration target size8-12 million lb U3O8

Geological Legend

Barber exploration target size for feasibility decision is 2.6‐3.9 million short tons @ 0.07‐0.09%



Geological Legend



eU3O8 for 4‐6 million lb U3O81

15 million lb at 1.5 million lbProduction Centre 2



15 million lb at 1.5 million lb U3O8 per annum is 10 years production, to be replaced by ongoing exploration

Production Centre 2BarberExploration target size 4-6 million lb U3O8

g g p

6km (3.8 miles)

Development Modele e op e odeProposed Treatment and Metallurgical Process

Proposed process facility is an ISR resin strip plant central to the well fields producing approx 1 5 millionfields producing approx 1.5 million lb U3O8 per year

Expected grade across the prospects is 0.05‐0.09% U3O8

Estimated recoveries 70%

Anticipated capital cost US$40Anticipated capital cost US$40 million plus US$8 million per year annual well‐field capital

Estimated operating costs US$15/lbEstimated operating costs US$15/lb U3O8 *

Total costs US$28/lb U3O8

*averaged ISR cash cost RBC Capital

Development ModelPreliminary Scoping StudyPreliminary Scoping Study*

US$ per lb US$ /year

Revenue $65 $98 millionCapital expenditure $1.3 $2.0 millionFinancing cost 10% $2 7 $4 millionFinancing cost 10% $2.7 $4 millionOperating cost $15 $23 millionRoyalty 6% $4 $6 million

Assumptions

Annual well field capital $5.3 $8 million

Total Costs $28.30 $43.0 millionDepreciation $12 0 million

Grade 0.06

$65/lb U3O8

30% tax

10% d i ti

Depreciation $12.0 millionGross margin $55.0 millionTax 30% $13 million

10% depreciation

1.5mm lb per yr.

$40 million Capex

$15 Opex/lb

Net $42 million

NPV $260 million

* Figures are indicative only to illustrate project potential based on published costs for similar ISR operations in the US in recent years. Figures assume continued growth in landholdings over life of project and exploration success at a similar rate to historic exploration.

$ p /

Recovered resource42 million lb U3O8

IRR 70%

2008‐2009 Work Program2008 2009 Work ProgramWork Type Timingyp g

Confirm veracity of historic data January ‐March 2008

Prepare internal resource estimate fromhistoric Information for scoping purposes

February –April 2008

Continue Land Acquisition program January – December 2008Continue Land Acquisition program January December 2008

Commence environmental permitting and baseline studies

May 2008 ‐ 2010

Drill – Twin historic holes, Extend mineralisation

September 2008

Prepare JORC compliant Resource November 2009Prepare JORC compliant Resource November 2009

Drill – resource extension May – December 2009

Wh I I P i l Mi l ?Why Invest In Peninsula Minerals?

World class uranium projects in USA and South AfricaUndervalued relative to peersFirst class management teamHigh level of uranium expertiseWell funded treasuryWell funded treasuryDevelopment initiated at the Lance projectsExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historicExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic mineralisation in South AfricaProspective tenements in Australia in known uranium provincesHi h t ti l t d f k i li ti d kHigh potential to expand areas of known mineralisation and make new discoveries

Projects Location

K i i iKaroo uranium province is within the Permo‐Triassic Karoo Basin

U and Mo mineralisation has been identified in the sandstones of the Beaufort GroupBeaufort Group

S th Af i St U iSouth Africa – Strong Uranium Exploration History

Uranium first discovered in 1970 by Union Carbide

p y

y

Significant exploration during the 1970’s and 1980’s identified several U ore bodies within the Karoo Basin

Exploration and development abandoned when U price collapsed inwhen U price collapsed in 1980’s (to less than $20 per lb U3O8)

South Africa Mining Environment

County with a very long mining history

Well defined system for environmental permitting and developmentWell defined system for environmental permitting and developmentapproval

Mining is the most important export earner for South Africa

South Africa has an active uranium mining industry

All uranium produced is sold to the SA Government who manage theon‐sale giving a guaranteed market for producerso sa e g g a gua a teed a et o p oduce s

Foreign companies must have Black Economic Empowermentpartner; Peninsula’s BEE partner is Mmakau Mining which holds 26%of the Project CEO Bridgette Radebe (Chairperson SAMDA)of the Project. CEO Bridgette Radebe (Chairperson SAMDA)

The Karoo is one of the main areas of focus for uranium exploration inRSA

I f t tBeaufort West, lying on the sealed highway between Cape Town

InfrastructureBeaufort West, lying on the sealed highway between Cape Townand Johannesburg is approximately central to all the sites and is aservice centre for the region

The region is serviced by well maintained sealed and unsealedroads

Topography is a mixture of flat to gently undulating plateau (Sites 5,29, 37, 45) with some major escarpments (Site 22, 45, 49 ) over thesix projects covering 1,980km2

Site 37 looking west

GeologyU (as uraninite and coffinite) and Mo (molybdenite) arehosted within multi‐sequence sandstone units; U

i it t h idi d d t iprecipitates where oxidized groundwater comes incontact with reduced water from shale units or organicmaterial within the sandstone

Tabular to ribbon style mineralised bodies deposited,usually 1‐3m thick and shallowly dipping

I l h i i li i f d fIn plan the uranium mineralisation forms pods ofapproximately 600m in length, 200m in width and 1 to 3min thickness

K P j t P t E l tiKaroo Projects Past ExplorationUranium exploration commenced in 1969, with major companies Union Carbide, Esso and JCI

f ll di i i il 1982successfully discovering uranium resources up until 1982

Peninsula’s Sites 22, 29 and 45 contain three of these historic U/Mo resources

As part of the RSA government’s desire to locate strategic minerals, the SACG flew a 1km spacedradiometric survey in 1976. Numerous U anomalies were identified, many of these were outsideof areas being explored by mining companiesof areas being explored by mining companies

To identify strategic Mo mineralisation, in the 1980’s the SACG completed a rock chip samplingprogram throughout the Karoo uranium provinceprogram throughout the Karoo uranium province

Tasman Pacific Minerals Limited used the results of this survey highlighting U and Momineralisation to locate the 6 Projectsmineralisation to locate the 6 Projects

Grades of over 1% U3O8 and 0.4% Mo were not uncommon in the SAGC sampling

In January 2007 Peninsula acquired 100% of Tasman Pacific

I 1979 1981 JCI

Site 22 U and Mo Mineralisation

FARM 404 P1

1120

114

118

0 1 200

1280 1300

13 20

13 40

13 60

13 8 0

1400

142 014401 46 0148015 0 0

13 6013 80

13 40

In 1979‐1981 JCI drilled 718 percussion holes d i t t d U

FARM 404 RE

1080

20

1160

1220

1240

1260

and intersected U and Mo mineralisation A hi i

FARM 236

MATJES KLOOF 235

11 00

Legend0

A historic resource was producedThe main

1020

100

0

0

100

500

1000

2000

5000 Z i t d t il

mineralised trend extends for greater than 2 km and other

f

GROOT TAFEL BERGFONTEIN 237 P3

SLINGERSFONTEIN 232 P41060104

0

0 750 1,500375

MetresArea 22 Percussion Drilling

Uranium Results

5000

>5000 Zoom into detailof Mo sampling

areas of mineralisation were identified

lSite 22 Mo Mineralisation

Mo is associated with U mineralisation, but 1120

11401180

1200

1220

,is often slightly above and offset

Intersections

1100

1160

Intersections >1000ppm Mo are common

1080

LegendMolybdenum Gradesppm

0

50

100

500

1000

1060

0 250 500125Area 22 Percussion Drilling

1000

2000

>2000

MetresArea 22 Percussion Drilling

Molybdenum Results

K C t E l tiKaroo Current ExplorationDetailed low level radiometric survey flown over all six project areas in Januaryand February 2008

New radiometric uranium anomalies have been identified at all six projectNew radiometric uranium anomalies have been identified at all six projectareas

Potential to extend existing historic uranium resources has been identified at aminimum of two sites

Field inspections have commenced at all six project areas

Highly anomalous results (up to 0.6% eU3O8) from Site 29, the first projectarea that has been tested

Drill testing of the best targets planned for Mid 2009

Site 29 Radiometric Anomalies – Ground l d

On ground testing

Validationg g

validates aerial anomaliesStrongly anomalous g yreadings at four sites on margins of syncline in centre of projectHistoric resource within syncline proves mineralised nature of

d t (2 8k 2)sandstone (2.8km2)Very small portion of prospective ground t t d b d illitested by drillingThree other high priority targets verified

Site 22 Radiometric AnomaliesNew Radiometric survey detects historic

i h

Site 22 Radiometric AnomaliesExisting GT-7 resource area (blue) with relatively subtle

Strong new uranium anomalies in areas with no resource area with

moderate anomalyexploration target size t Sit 22 i lti l

with relatively subtle radiometric signature

anomalies in areas with no historic drilling

at Site 22 is multiple bodies of 0.7‐1.5 million tonnes @ 0.13‐0 15% U O for 2‐3mlb0.15% U3O8 for 2‐3mlb U3O8

1

Many new, stronger anomalies identified inanomalies identified in areas with no previous Uranium anomalismNew anomalies mayNew anomalies may reflect additional Uranium mineralisation

2008 Karoo Work programp gWork Type Timing

Fly detailed (100m line spacing by 20m flight height) radiometric and magnetic survey

Complete

Review radiometric anomalies and prioritise for field testing

Complete

Commence ground follow‐up of July–August 2008Commence ground follow up of radiometric anomalies identified in new survey

July August 2008

Modify Prospecting rights to allow for drill September 2008–March 2009 y p g gtesting of targets

p

Drill – Test best radiometric anomalies (6,000m RC, 500m DD)

May–July 2009

Prepare JORC compliant Resources at best prospect

November 2009

Wh I I P i l Mi l ?Why Invest In Peninsula Minerals?

World class uranium projects in USA and South AfricaUndervalued relative to peersFirst class management teamHigh level of Uranium expertiseWell funded treasuryWell funded treasuryDevelopment initiated at the Lance ProjectsExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historicExtensive new radiometric uranium anomalies and historic mineralisation in South AfricaProspective tenements in Australia in known uranium provincesHi h t ti l t d f k i li ti d kHigh potential to expand areas of known mineralisation and make new discoveries

Notes1Please note that the potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets in this presentation are conceptual in nature, that there has beeninsufficient exploration to define a Mineral Resource and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a MineralResource.

Disequilibrium Explanatory Statement: eU3O8 refers to the equivalent U3O8 grade. This is estimated from gross‐gamma down hole measurementscorrected for water and drilling mud in each hole. These results are provisional upon the application of calibration correction factors which aredetermined from geochemical analysis. Geochemical analysis may show higher or lower amounts of actual U3O8, the difference being referred to asdisequilibrium. All eU3O8 results above are affected by issues pertaining to possible disequilibrium and uranium mobility which should be taken intoq 3 8 y p g p q yaccount when interpreting those pending confirmatory chemical analyses.

Documents

PENINSULA MINERALS LIMITED PRESENTATION PEN Presentation.pdf · Presentation is, or may be relied upon as, a promise, representation or warranty, whether as to the past or the future